Posted on 04/09/2022 6:16:03 AM PDT by marktwain
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- The video is a little over 16 minutes long. It features Aaron Brown answering questions and pontificating on the failings of the vast majority of “studies” aimed at various “gun control” policies. Brown is a well-credentialed expert on statistics.
Early on, an important point is made about gun control policies. They have tremendous associated costs. Those costs are almost never considered in policy debates. This is a failing of Progressive philosophy and government policy in general. While benefits are stressed, costs are ignored or glossed over.
Brown focuses heavily on a Rand meta-study updated in 2020. The Rand study evaluated 27,900 studies related to gun control. Of those, only 123 met the Rand criteria for rigorous methodology and data. The Rand study, in 412 pages of text, graphics, and tables, shows, at best, limited evidence in a few rigorous studies. Brown shows the number of significant results falls inside the number of results expected by chance.
Brown concludes that uncertainty in the data makes meaningful results impossible to obtain. Brown’s expertise shows well here. As Brown says:
“These studies are doomed from the start.”
Brown demonstrates that of the 722 hypotheses tested, the random chance should have found 36 positive significant effects and 36 negative significant effects. Only 18 positive effects were found. Only 1 negative significant effect was found.
The number of significant effects is well within the number expected by random effects in the data.
Brown concludes the disparity in positive and negative results shows researchers are discarding or hiding results that show negative consequences for gun control policies.
I was surprised there was only one positive significant result shown. I knew of two well-done studies that had found significant negative results for gun control policies. When I checked the sources, the reason became
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
Worth watching.
Common SENSE says that governmental “gun control” doesn’t work.
I’m gonna go out on a limb and claim that gun control is a necessity in that you must be able to control your gun for accuracy.
Gun control works better when using two hands.
_________________
And squeeze the trigger, don't jerk it.
(like minds think alike)👉 (look, my finger's a gun!)
If God didn’t want us to have guns, why’d He give us trigger fingers. A trigger finger is nothing but a body attached to it.
Depends on the goal. To say “gun control works” (or not) is meaningless unless there is a clearly stated desired outcome.
“Gun control works to reduce crime!” Well, we all know how that always pans out. The opposite result is the outcome.
“Gun control works to disarm your political opponents (so you can more easily genocide them)!” Now we’re getting somewhere. While this is not the stated goal, it IS the goal.
The video and the Rand meta study both are looking exclusively at stated goals.
Well, that’s good. I didn’t read the study, I was just making an observation that was based more on how “progressives” view things relating to firearms restrictions.
Your point is valid, and worth making.
Thank you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.